Movies in General

Jeff Head said:

Great flick. A few F bombs and a few technical issues...but all in all a VERY good film.

Sort of a modern Apollo 13, but with more at stake, both in terms of people and in terms of the program.

Really enjoyed it. Damon plays a great role. I also really liked the wy they brought China into the movie as a very large contributor to the rescue mission. In fact, after the US NASA relief vessel with the necessary additional supplies blew up after launch, without the Chinese they rescue could not have been realized at all.

I think as a result, China sales will be bound to go up...and the marketing people in this film realize that. So not only is a good thing in terms of good will...but it will also be a good thing for the movie's bottom line.

Over the last year I have seen three good sci-fis, Gravity, Interstellar, and now the Martian in that order seeing them.

I would rate them in this order:

1. Interstellar
2. The Martian
3. Gravity.

I really enjoyed all three. I feel Interstellar is epic. The Martian is really good, but I would not call it an epic, it, and then Gravity.

I would recommend if you like Sci-Fi and thrillers...see all of them/

Click to expand...

siegecrossbow said:

I watched it again in theater with three of my friends after completing two exams. It held up really well on second viewing. I also managed to catch a lot of quips and technical details that I missed on first viewing.

The China scenes were great in the sense that it didn't feel like typical Hollywood China-pandering (Ironman 3). There were brief conflicts between Sean Bean's character and a manager (?) at CNSA and more importantly, China's involvement played a key role in the plot. From what I've read, the side plot of the Taiyangshen mission was lifted from the novel, so it was not like Fox added it just to pull in the Chinese audience.

I felt that all three of the films you listed owed a great deal to 2001: A Space Odyssey in their depiction of space as well as many of the stylistic shots. Just goes to show how great of an impact Stanley Kubrick has on modern cinema.

Click to expand...

This is how I tell my mom when she asked how good is "The Martian"
"Ridney Scott did another space movie, but without all the horror and gore."

Now, this is one that I'd buy the blu-ray once it's released, hands down. It's by all count a positive-mood, apolitical themed movie, something not so common these days. The Chinese involvement part is straight from the novel so if anyone complains about it (and trust me, I saw plenty of small-minded comments in HK forums), 80% of the chances you didn't even bother to read the original novel - the obvious omission in the movie version is what the Chinese lamented about (specifically doing so will cost them the entire Taiyangshen mission, as the state ain't going to sign another blank cheque to build a replacement rocket of that calibre, years of work goes down the flush) and asked for in return - a seat for Chinese crew in Ares 5 mission (the pan angle at the ending couldn't see it, or was it just me sat at the front? It's full house even after 2 weeks on) - so the Chinese ain't doing this purely on gratis, though the exchange will still be seen by everyone as one good faith leads to another.

Although the critical rocket don't go all the way to Mars it's still very critical piece because it's not like you got a rocket sitting around just as when you need one, the one that blew up should give you a timeframe of that, and that was already on a crash-course and their "only in emergency" piggy bank, but instead of waggle for more funding and all those paperwork, the Chinese essentially gave NASA a "plan B" that they just have to concentrate on putting together the payload.

In my book, this is like Interstellar, another of the rare breed - hardcore science movie, even after some of the artistic licences the producers admitted, it's still very hardcore science. However, The Martian is far more easy for average audiences to digest, that's because the core physics in Interstellar is something that, if you ain't quantum physics undergrads, you'll need to have your nerd-o-meter almost maxed out to understand, otherwise you're like hearing Latin for 2/3 of the time, like my mom.

The core science are sound, not only the crop growing and water-making part, but also the re-purposed Sojourner rover - back then NASA did talk about future mission can, if find the rovers on Mars, they just need to plug it in to give it the juice.

(the pan angle at the ending couldn't see it, or was it just me sat at the front? It's full house even after 2 weeks on)

Click to expand...

I actually noticed this both times I saw the movie. In the ending montage, Martinez shook hands with an astronaut (taikongnaut?) with oriental features right before the liftoff of the next Aries Mission. The two scientific directors from CNSA were also at NASA to witness the liftoff, so I assumed that they let a Chinese taikongnaut join the mission as gratitude to the Chinese. Since the astronaut in question wore the same spacesuit as the rest of the astronauts and the movie didn't elaborate on the details, however, I didn't know for sure whether it was a taikongnaut or an Asian American astronaut.

Great comments, MwRYum!

MwRYum said:

...and asked for in return - a seat for Chinese crew in Ares 5 mission (the pan angle at the ending couldn't see it, or was it just me sat at the front? It's full house even after 2 weeks on) - so the Chinese ain't doing this purely on gratis, though the exchange will still be seen by everyone as one good faith leads to another.

Click to expand...

My son and I picked up on it...in fact said that it was clear to us that the Chinese had sought a seat on the next mission in exchange. Frm that one quick scene, and from the two Chinese from their program being there for liftoff, it was clear to us.

MwRYum said:

...In my book, this is like Interstellar, another of the rare breed - hardcore science movie, even after some of the artistic licences the producers admitted, it's still very hardcore science.

Click to expand...

I agree, and will end up with both on my iPad. But I still like interstellar better.

MwRYum said:

... However, The Martian is far more easy for average audiences to digest, that's because the core physics in Interstellar is something that, if you ain't quantum physics undergrads, you'll need to have your nerd-o-meter almost maxed out to understand.

Click to expand...

Hehehe...agreed.

After watching.The Martian a second time,I guess Sci Fi ain't my genre of movie.
Im assuming the first lander with the other astronauts escaping Mars docked with the mother ship, so why couldn't Matt Damon?

B.I.B. said:

After watching.The Martian a second time,I guess Sci Fi ain't my genre of movie.
Im assuming the first lander with the other astronauts escaping Mars docked with the mother ship, so why couldn't Matt Damon?

Click to expand...

The main ship was in a stable orbit around Mars when the other astronauts took off. When Mark Watney tried to take off, the ship approached Mars at a high velocity and couldn't afford to inject into a stable orbit (presumably for propellant limitation reason as well as the launch window deadline). In order for Mark to rendezvous with the ship, he needs to match velocity with the ship, hence the quip about him becoming the "fastest man in history".

When I saw that Taikonaut as a part of the Ares mission in the end, I chuckled because of the debates in here on space cooperation.

If you ever studied film, movies are like reading hieroglyphics. A single pictograph on its own doesn't say much. But a number of them in a row they're like a word in a sentence. Scenes in movies work the same way beyond just what the characters are saying in dialog. Yeah so if you saw the two CNSA officials watching the next Ares Mars mission with NASA then that's what they were saying that a Taikonaunt was invited because of China's contribution to the rescue mission.

B.I.B. said:

... assuming the first lander with the other astronauts escaping Mars docked with the mother ship, so why couldn't Matt Damon?

Click to expand...

As they were leaving the habitat in an emergency to escape the oncoming storm, Damon was injured and presumed dead.

when that happened, the lander was teetering in the storm and they had to make a choice to leave...or maybe no one would get off.

So, presuming him dead...they left.

By the time Damon came to, got back in the habitat, and began making changes that were later noticed by NASA...the other astronauts were well on their way back to earth.

Saw "Bridge of Spies" today and sadly, I didn't end up enjoying the film as much as I thought I would. Don't get me wrong, the film was expertly shot, well acted, had a great story, engaging characters, and gorgeous cinematography, and I was thoroughly invested for the "build up" phase of the film. Spielberg went to great lengths to humanize the Soviet spy Abel, who responded to pressure with deadpan, sardonic wit and hidden strength, in order for the audience to invest in lawyer/amateur-negotiator Donovan's (played by Tom Hanks) struggles. In order to stand up for his belief in the U.S. constitution, Donovan risked his life defending an obviously guilty Soviet spy at the cost to his image, career, and even his life, and I was glad that the film explored those aspects of his character.

The physical shoot-down of Francis Gary Powers, which catalyzed the second part of the film, took some liberties with historical accuracy but was engaging in a Hollywood sort of way. After Power's capture, Donovan was sent to East Berlin to negotiate for a "trade" between Abel and Powers, and the film became, ironically, slower and less engaging for me. A significant subplot involved Donovan trying to free an American grad student who was wrongfully imprisoned by the East Germans. The problem is that I wasn't shown enough of the grad student or his predicaments in order for me to invest in the subplot or the character. That took some of the "zing", so to speak, off the moment when Donovan managed to secure the grad student's release from the East Germans at the last possible moment.

That said, I think you'll enjoy "Bridge of Spies" a great deal more if you are, ironically, not knowledgeable about the Cold War but interested in learning about the history. It is perfectly serviceable as a Cold War epic that raises many interesting questions, but doesn't stand as well as an independent drama.

B.I.B. said:

After watching.The Martian a second time,I guess Sci Fi ain't my genre of movie.
Im assuming the first lander with the other astronauts escaping Mars docked with the mother ship, so why couldn't Matt Damon?

Click to expand...

Because during the first time, the Hermes spacecraft was in a lower, stable orbit waiting for the MAV, as it should be; the 2nd time however, was more akin to a fulton recovery op (alas, without the balloon and cable to snag it up, but you should get the analogy) rather than a stop-and-pickup. The Hermes spacecraft comes in at a higher orbit and there's a lowest velocity trashold to maintain in order to conserve fuel to make it back to Earth, the impromptu deceleration was a risky "plan B" but nonetheless worked, barely.

Now, because it's still at a higher orbit than the MAV designed to reach, the only alternative is to give the MAV an extreme diet, stripping almost everything down to just the structural frame. Fortunately, because Mars has a thin atmosphere, they can hack it with a "convertable"...less weight means can reach higher orbit.

siegecrossbow said:

Saw "Bridge of Spies" today and sadly, I didn't end up enjoying the film as much as I thought I would. Don't get me wrong, the film was expertly shot, well acted, had a great story, engaging characters, and gorgeous choreography, and I was thoroughly invested for the "build up" phase of the film. Spielberg went to great lengths to humanize the Soviet spy Abel, who responded to pressure with deadpan, sardonic wit and hidden strength, in order for the audience to invest in lawyer/amateur-negotiator Donovan's (played by Tom Hanks) struggles. In order to stand up for his belief in the U.S. constitution, Donovan risked his life defending an obviously guilty Soviet spy at the cost to his image, career, and even his life, and I was glad that the film explored those aspects of his character.

The physical shoot-down of Francis Gary Powers, which catalyzed the second part of the film, took some liberties with historical accuracy but was engaging in a Hollywood sort of way. After Power's capture, Donovan was sent to East Berlin to negotiate for a "trade" between Abel and Powers, and the film became, ironically, slower and less engaging for me. A significant subplot involved Donovan trying to free an American grad student who was wrongfully imprisoned by the East Germans. The problem is that I wasn't shown enough of the grad student or his predicaments in order for me to invest in the subplot or the character. That took some of the "zing", so to speak, off the moment when Donovan managed to secure the grad student's release from the East Germans at the last possible moment.

That said, I think you'll enjoy "Bridge of Spies" a great deal more if you are, ironically, not knowledgeable about the Cold War but interested in learning about the history. It is perfectly serviceable as a Cold War epic that raises many interesting questions, but doesn't stand as well as an independent drama.

Click to expand...

I was going to watch the movie after viewing the "trailer". You have done me a favour. After reading your POV. I decided it wasn't worth me making the three and half hour round trip drive to the closest movie complex from where I live. So it looks like it's going to have to be a pirated version borrowed from a friend.